KAMALA BAI Vs. BHAGIRATHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in this case claims the property sued for as the maternal aunt of a deceased maiden of a Hindu family. THE defendant is the step-mother of the maiden. THE question for decision is whether the plaintiff is entitled to preferential rights "over the defendant. THE Bombay High Court held in Tukaram v. Narayan Ramchandra (1912) I.L.R., 36 Bom., 339 and Janglubai v. Jetha Appaji (1908) I.L.R., 32 Bom., 409, that in default of both the mother and the father a maiden s property goes to the husband s sapindas. THE same view was accepted by the Calcutta High Court in Dwaraka Nath Roy v. Sarat Chandra Singh Roy (1912) I.L.R., 39 Calc., 319, though in that case there was no contest between the relations of the mother and of the father. In the Mitakshara there are no express texts dealing with the succession to the property of a maiden in default of the mother and the father, the text stopping with succession to the parents, the words parents being interpreted to mean the mother and then the father. But in the case of the property of a childless married woman the succession is carried further down. It, is stated that the property goes to the parents and in default which may be interpreted to mean to their sapindas as Mr. Sitarama Row contends. THE Viramitrodaya does not deal specifically with the succession to a maiden s property at all but provides for the succession to the property of a childless married girl in terms similar to those used in the Mitakshara. We see no reason for not accepting the view of the Bombay High Court, that the sapindas, both of the father and mother, must be understood to mean the same persons as the mother becomes a member of the father s family on her marriage. In this view the defendant, as the wife of the deceased maiden s father, would be a nearer heir than the plaintiff. But Mr. Sitarama Row contends that the father s widow could not inherit his property as a sapinda. He relies on the prevalent rule that female gotraja sapindas do not inherit as agnate relations taking the rank which they would be entitled to if their claims were based on sapinda relationship. With regard to the succession to a male s property this rule, no doubt, has been enforced in this Court. See Balamma v. Pullayya (1895) I.L.R., 18 Mad., 168 and Thayammal v. Annamalai Mudali (1896) I.L.B., 19 Mad., 35. But in the case of succession to sridhanam property a daughter has been held to be entitled to inherit as Sapinda where the succession has to be traced through the father or the husband. See Manja Pillai v. Sivabhagiathachi (1911) 21 M.L.J., 851. We see no reason why we should not adopt the same view with regard to the wife. Moreover, there is much support in the Mitakshara for the view, that a widow inherits her husband s property as his sapinda being one half of the husband s body.

(2.) WE therefore agree with the District Judge that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in preference to the defendant and we dismiss the Second Appeal with costs.